Page - 44 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
Image of the Page - 44 -
Text of the Page - 44 -
44 I.Wallimann-Helmeret al.
L&Dwould be by considering compensatory or rectificatory justice. These kinds
of justice considerations define the appropriate remedy for a damage or a loss. A
classical compensatory principle, for example, demands that the victim is made
whole again.Thevictims shouldfind themselves in the sameconditionas theyhad
beenbefore infliction; towit, as theywouldhavebeenhad theharmneveroccurred
(Wallimann-Helmer2015;PageandHeyward2016).Accordingtoconsiderationsof
compensatoryjustice it iskeytoidentify theinflictorscontributingtotheoccurrence
of harm, because, according to themost commonunderstanding of compensation,
those causing harm are seen as liable to make those they inflicted whole again.
In terms of climate L&D, such a principle requires that those facingL&Dshould
bemadewhole againby those liable for theseharms.This isfirst and foremost the
majorgreenhousegasemitterswhocontributeorhavecontributedthemosttoclimate
changeand in sodoing toclimate-relatedL&D.
Although such considerations of compensatory justice are plausible and impor-
tant, in the followingwe argue that a different justice framing of how to consider
theethical implicationsofclimateL&Dmustbeconsideredalternativelyor incon-
junctionwith the intuitive compensatoryview.This alternative framing is basedon
considerationsofdistributive justice.There are at least two reasons for considering
this alternative framework. First, on pragmatic grounds in light of paragraph52of
decision 1/CP.21 such an alternative framingmaymake acceptance of L&Dmea-
suresamongpotentialdonorcountriesmore feasible, at leastundercurrentpolitical
conditions.This is so,becausedecision1/CP.21makesexplicit that“Article8of the
[Paris]Agreementdoesnot involveorprovideabasis forany liabilityorcompensa-
tion”(UNFCCC2015).2 Second, thisalternative framingallows to fullycapture the
exigenceof thoseactually facingL&Dsince it allowsnotonlyassignmentof reme-
dialresponsibilitiesforanthropogenicclimateL&Dasisthecasewithcompensatory
claimsbutalsoresponsibilitiesforL&Dcausedbynaturalclimatevariability(reme-
dial responsibilities arediscussedat greater length in2.5).Compensatory justice is
onlyowed for anthropogenicL&Dbecause, conceptually speaking, those inflicting
harmonothers areonlyunder aduty tocompensate for theharms theycausewhile
naturalclimatevariation isnotaddressed.For theremainderof this sectionweelab-
orateonthedifferencesbetweencompensatoryanddistributivejusticeframings(see
Table2.2).
CompensatoryJustice
Tobetterunderstandthedifferencesinframingethical implicationsofL&Dinterms
of distributive justice, it is helpful to clarify some issues in analysing these impli-
cations from the perspective of compensatory justice.We can distinguish several
prominent and intuitivelyplausibleprinciples to justifydutiesof compensation (cf.
Gardiner et al. 2010).As alreadymentioned, in the case of L&D themost plausi-
ble responsibility bearer for compensatoryduties is the emitter. The corresponding
principle of justice is usually called thePolluter Pays Principle (PPP). A second
prominent principle of justice towarrant compensatoryduties identifies thebenefi-
2For other readings on the legal perspective see for exampleLees (2016),Mayer (2017) and the
chapterbySimlingerandMayer (2018).
Loss and Damage from Climate Change
Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Title
- Loss and Damage from Climate Change
- Subtitle
- Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Authors
- Reinhard Mechler
- Laurens M. Bouwer
- Thomas Schinko
- Swenja Surminski
- JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
- Publisher
- Springer Open
- Date
- 2019
- Language
- English
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-3-319-72026-5
- Size
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Pages
- 580
- Keywords
- Environment, Climate change, Environmental law, Environmental policy, Risk management
- Categories
- International
- Naturwissenschaften Umwelt und Klima